The State of Arizona has very lenient laws regarding involuntary commitment.

Arizona has one of the least restrictive laws when it comes to detaining apparently mentally ill people against their will. Under the state's broad involuntary-commitment statute, the government can mandate in-patient treatment for anyone determined to be "persistently or acutely disabled." That could include a broad range of seemingly troubled individuals. By comparison, many other states limit involuntary commitment only to people shown to be a danger to themselves or others, or who are found to be completely unable to take care of themselves.

Arizona also goes farther than many other states in defining who may initiate involuntary-commitment proceedings. In Arizona, virtually anyone who had suspected that Loughner had mental problems and needed help could have filed an application to a state-licensed healthcare agency for a court-ordered evaluation. Some states require that the application be initiated by someone close to the troubled person, among other discrete categories.

But it is not that easy...

...some years ago, when I was working downtown Chicago, we had an employee who clearly was...well nuts. He complained of little German men who were following him around and some other strange things. I am not sure of whether he was "Righty" or "Lefty" but he did name the Klu Klux Klan and the American Nazi party - along with every employer he ever had and some others in his "pro se" lawsuit about conspiracies.

I worked with our attorney and his parents to get him involuntarily committed. It is not easy (nor should it be or everyone would be getting their ex-spouses or annoying neighbor or the like committed.)

It costs money to do it. And it is frightening. During the process there were a couple of occasions I was very nervous - as the company representative.

At that time, in Illinois, an involuntary commitment was only good for seven days. Which means - he was back out a week later. And I was again a little nervous.

So..it is easy to say "someone" should have had him committed - much, much more difficult to be that "someone."

4. John Derbyshire intimated in the National Review that because Chelsea Clinton had "the taint," she should "be killed."

5. Ann Coulter: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."

6. Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

7. Bill O'Reilly: "ll those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains."

8. Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck said he was "thinking about killing Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"

Malkin is whining about Obama saying he wants to know "whose ass to kick" after the BP oil disaster.

How does that compare to Limbaugh joking about killing liberals, or Glenn Beck musing crazily about killing Michael Moore, or a writer for the National Review saying Chelsea Clinton should be killed because she's a Clinton, or Ann Coulter saying it's a shame Timothy McVeigh didn't bomb the NY Times building?

I don't even like the "whose ass to kick" rhetoric. I wish we could get away from all the silly macho talk that too many politicians are too fond of.

But that's a long way from the most important rightwing pundits talking wistfully of killing liberals and bombing mainstream, centrist publications that aren't rightwing enough for them.

And then there's the "liberal hunting license" graphic that many on the right are so fond of:

Malkin published their personal information on her website, prompting her hordes of orcish mouth-breathers to brandish their pitchforks and inundate the unsuspecting students with death threats (some of which you can read here). When the students frantically called on Malkin to remove their numbers, she posted their contact information again.

Think of that. She knew they were getting death threats from her followers, so she posted their contact info again.

I'm done with this discussion. I'm disgusted by any attempt to justify violent rhetoric, by either side.